Intruder shot, killed after kicking in door, charging occupant with a knife

#201
#201
McDad said:
This is another quote which is absurd, superficial, and preposterous.

Someone carrying a firearm, especially a concealed firearm, does nothing to limit or diminish the rights of L,L, and PoH of other people. They don't do it physically because the weapon is concealed. They don't do it through intimidation because the weapon is concealed. Would we say a political speech (protected by free speech) written on a piece of paper and carried in a backpack limits the rights of L,L, and PoH of others? Of course not.
Click to expand...
That's why I said I support her right to carry a concealed weapon if she has a permit.
 
#202
#202
luthervol said:
All true............that's the only part of it that's kind of enjoyable.

But the point remains and it is a point that is continually misrepresented by others.

I in no way support the banning or confiscation of all guns.
I have always been a strong proponent of a person's right to own a gun for protection, hunting, recreation, and/or collection.
But I have also always been for rational and reasonable regulations and controls.
There is no contradiction with those 3 positions.
Click to expand...
Ok. But here's a lil nugget of nuance in the nuisance...is your approach getting the message across to your audience?
 
#204
#204
McDad said:
Ok. But here's a lil nugget of nuance in the nuisance...is your approach getting the message across to your audience?
Click to expand...
Getting a message across to the 2a crowd? That's like searching for the Holy Grail.
But I think my messaging has been as impactful as anyone else's. Maybe more so.
x rounds per y seconds seems to have had some staying power.
Rational and reasonable.........continuums..........horrendously despicable
I think I've penetrated the sub-conscious.
 
#205
#205
McDad said:
Permit or not, there's no limit to the rights of others' L,L,&PoH demonstrated.
Click to expand...
My belief is that requiring a permit results in more concealed weapons actually remaining concealed and thereby not infringing on the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness rights of others.
 
#208
#208
luthervol said:
All true............that's the only part of it that's kind of enjoyable.

But the point remains and it is a point that is continually misrepresented by others.

I in no way support the banning or confiscation of all guns.
I have always been a strong proponent of a person's right to own a gun for protection, hunting, recreation, and/or collection.
But I have also always been for rational and reasonable regulations and controls.
There is no contradiction with those 3 positions.
Click to expand...

You left out a bigger issue/reason that pertains to the RIGHT to bear arms.
 
#209
#209
InVOLuntary said:
Exactly "In the house" "Home defense and protection"

The implication was there.
Click to expand...
lol.......of course she was in her house. Look at the title of the thread. The whole thing was about a guy kicking in her door and her defending herself.

I was glad that she had a gun and was able to do so.
(IN HER HOUSE - which is where her door that was kicked in happened to be)
 
#210
#210
luthervol said:
All true............that's the only part of it that's kind of enjoyable.

But the point remains and it is a point that is continually misrepresented by others.

I in no way support the banning or confiscation of all guns.
I have always been a strong proponent of a person's right to own a gun for protection, hunting, recreation, and/or collection.
But I have also always been for rational and reasonable regulations and controls.
There is no contradiction with those 3 positions.
Click to expand...

The contradiction is your arguing that the looks of a gun (in the SW15-22) example I provided is a reasonable and rational reason to regulate it. Or arguing that some guns are similar to nuclear weapons (not rational or reasonable).
 
#213
#213
volinbham said:
The contradiction is your arguing that the looks of a gun (in the SW15-22) example I provided is a reasonable and rational reason to regulate it. Or arguing that some guns are similar to nuclear weapons (not rational or reasonable).
Click to expand...
Again. My statements are being misrepresented. I said looks could be one of the considerations.

I can give you a similarity between guns and nukes....they have both been used in times of war.
How about another one. They are both considered to provide defense from aggressors.
You wouldn't suggest they have no similarities would you?
 
#214
#214
luthervol said:
Personally I'm glad she had a gun in her house and was able to defend herself. That's precisely why I so fervently support the right of gun ownership for home defense and protection.
Click to expand...
But not for personal protection while out of the home 🙄
 
#215
#215
luthervol said:
Again. My statements are being misrepresented. I said looks could be one of the considerations.

I can give you a similarity between guns and nukes....they have both been used in times of war.
How about another one. They are both considered to provide defense from aggressors.
You wouldn't suggest they have no similarities would you?
Click to expand...
You don't use a nuke as a defense. Lmfao
 
#220
#220
luthervol said:
Again. My statements are being misrepresented. I said looks could be one of the considerations.

I can give you a similarity between guns and nukes....they have both been used in times of war.
How about another one. They are both considered to provide defense from aggressors.
You wouldn't suggest they have no similarities would you?
Click to expand...

nukes and bread have similarities (5 letters). It's a meaningless argument and I'm pretty sure you know that.

looks of a gun as a consideration for regulating 2A rights is neither rational or reasonable
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, AM64, LouderVol and 2 others
#222
#222
volinbham said:
The contradiction is your arguing that the looks of a gun (in the SW15-22) example I provided is a reasonable and rational reason to regulate it. Or arguing that some guns are similar to nuclear weapons (not rational or reasonable).
Click to expand...

Be prepared for a stupefying conflation...you know, a knife (absolutely used as a weapon) is kinda/sorta/if you're buttchugging ayahuasca, the same thing as a nuke.

Edit: LOL, oh yeah.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top